Trump admin ADMITS wrongful deportation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immediately following the Supreme Court opinion, aliens refiled in Texas (and New York) and have been granted TROs.

does this only affect future removals? what is the impact on the people who have already been deported to El Salvador?

It only affects three specific people who are still in TX. No effect on the people already in El Salvador. My guess is we're going to see habeas petitions filed in DC for those already sent to El Salvador. There's law that habeas venue is in DC for people not present in the US. That's where the Guantanamo cases went for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immediately following the Supreme Court opinion, aliens refiled in Texas (and New York) and have been granted TROs.

does this only affect future removals? what is the impact on the people who have already been deported to El Salvador?

It only affects three specific people who are still in TX. No effect on the people already in El Salvador. My guess is we're going to see habeas petitions filed in DC for those already sent to El Salvador. There's law that habeas venue is in DC for people not present in the US. That's where the Guantanamo cases went for example.

And the Judge in Texas is a Trump-appointee so you Magamunchkins can go all "rogue leftist" whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Yes, a hearing challenging nationality or belonging to tda could be due process.

The Trump administration wanted to avoid all of that using the unreviewable AEA. The Supreme Court didn't review the AEA one way or the other but instead said it is challengeable.

Now explain the distinction between reviewable and challengeable and how that [non-existent] distinction helps the government. Answer: it doesn't. It is the opposite of what they wanted.

Use of AEA is not reviewable. Individuals being listed as a member of the group under AEA can challenge their particular membership.
Class action not available, only individual review. Which is what the government conceded to begin with.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Yes, a hearing challenging nationality or belonging to tda could be due process.

The Trump administration wanted to avoid all of that using the unreviewable AEA. The Supreme Court didn't review the AEA one way or the other but instead said it is challengeable.

Now explain the distinction between reviewable and challengeable and how that [non-existent] distinction helps the government. Answer: it doesn't. It is the opposite of what they wanted.

Use of AEA is not reviewable. Individuals being listed as a member of the group under AEA can challenge their particular membership.
Class action not available, only individual review. Which is what the government conceded to begin with.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

You do understand that some of the deported Venezuelans were not actually in the gang, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Yes, a hearing challenging nationality or belonging to tda could be due process.

The Trump administration wanted to avoid all of that using the unreviewable AEA. The Supreme Court didn't review the AEA one way or the other but instead said it is challengeable.

Now explain the distinction between reviewable and challengeable and how that [non-existent] distinction helps the government. Answer: it doesn't. It is the opposite of what they wanted.

Use of AEA is not reviewable. Individuals being listed as a member of the group under AEA can challenge their particular membership.
Class action not available, only individual review. Which is what the government conceded to begin with.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

I can’t tell if you guys are really this dense or if you are pretending not to understand. No one is against gang bangers being deported. But we are pro-due process. Otherwise, anyone can be accused of anything and sent to a gulag in El Salvador. Do you understand this?

[Anonymous]

And now the White House has confirmed Republicans are looking at ways to report American citizens.

Warned you all before the election, but did you listen?

If you identity or appear to the Hispanic, be careful out there.

[Anonymous]

They can't produce this dude for return to the US b/c this dude no longer exists. He's def been killed by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can't produce this dude for return to the US b/c this dude no longer exists. He's def been killed by now.

Killed by whom? The rival gangs of the gang "he's not in"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't produce this dude for return to the US b/c this dude no longer exists. He's def been killed by now.

Killed by whom? The rival gangs of the gang "he's not in"?

yep, you can be hurt if you refuse to join a gang, any gang

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't produce this dude for return to the US b/c this dude no longer exists. He's def been killed by now.

Killed by whom? The rival gangs of the gang "he's not in"?

What do you not understand? This whole "rival gang" confusion is invented by you. MS-13 repeatedly threatened the family and tried to recruit him. He escaped to the US. The US granted him Withholding of Removal because there was credible evidenece that he would be killed by MS-13. Trump sent him to a prison created to house members of MS-13.

What don't you understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can't produce this dude for return to the US b/c this dude no longer exists. He's def been killed by now.

I actually doubt this. I think Bukele is too smart and knows that the world's eyes are on these deportees. I am not saying that they are not being abused or tortured, just that I doubt they randomly threw him into a cell with the already jailed MS-13 members.

If the dozens of promotional videos on CECOT are in any way believable, the amount of security is intense. If he gets killed in jail, CECOT wanted it to happen. And I doubt that is the case at this point.

[Anonymous]

He could be walking free in El Salvador right now as a deported illegal immigrant. Instead he made up a story about persecution by Barrios 18 gang, and got withholding of removal, and is now through some error sitting in prison in El Salvador.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He could be walking free in El Salvador right now as a deported illegal immigrant.Instead he made up a story about persecution by Barrios 18 gang, and got withholding of removal, and is now through some error sitting in prison in El Salvador.

How do you know he made up his story of persecution? Prove it or STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Yes, a hearing challenging nationality or belonging to tda could be due process.

The Trump administration wanted to avoid all of that using the unreviewable AEA. The Supreme Court didn't review the AEA one way or the other but instead said it is challengeable.

Now explain the distinction between reviewable and challengeable and how that [non-existent] distinction helps the government. Answer: it doesn't. It is the opposite of what they wanted.

Use of AEA is not reviewable. Individuals being listed as a member of the group under AEA can challenge their particular membership.
Class action not available, only individual review. Which is what the government conceded to begin with.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

I can’t tell if you guys are really this dense or if you are pretending not to understand. No one is against gang bangers being deported. But we are pro-due process. Otherwise, anyone can be accused of anything and sent to a gulag in El Salvador. Do you understand this?

They were not deported. They were abducted. If they had been deported, they would have had due process.

We need to be more specific with our language. These people were ABDUCTED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Yes, a hearing challenging nationality or belonging to tda could be due process.

The Trump administration wanted to avoid all of that using the unreviewable AEA. The Supreme Court didn't review the AEA one way or the other but instead said it is challengeable.

Now explain the distinction between reviewable and challengeable and how that [non-existent] distinction helps the government. Answer: it doesn't. It is the opposite of what they wanted.

Use of AEA is not reviewable. Individuals being listed as a member of the group under AEA can challenge their particular membership.
Class action not available, only individual review. Which is what the government conceded to begin with.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

I can’t tell if you guys are really this dense or if you are pretending not to understand. No one is against gang bangers being deported. But we are pro-due process. Otherwise, anyone can be accused of anything and sent to a gulag in El Salvador. Do you understand this?

They were not deported. They were abducted. If they had been deported, they would have had due process.

We need to be more specific with our language. These people were ABDUCTED.

Amen to that, PP. I started changing my own language about these removals the day I saw the video of the masked/plain clothes thugs that abducted the Turkish student off the street.